Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threat?

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

obvious Child said:

I have no desire reading an overtly partisan book advocated by an outrageously partisan member of this forum.

It is not up for debate that right after Chamberlain returned from the signing with Hitler he ordered the largest military buildup the UK has ever seen. That alone is definitive proof that Chamberlain knew war was coming and that the UK had to prepare. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that the UK was ready for war at that time is kidding themselves. Too bad Rummy didn't pay attention to the lessons Chamberlain taught us. We probably could have saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives not rushing to war with a military not ready for that conflict.

Click to expand...

The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich is overtly partisan? :lamo

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:

You ever hear of 9/11? The next time it might be 100 times worse.........Wake up Liberals!!!!

Click to expand...

Then we will wake up then and hopefully nuke the ****ers and be done with it.

Right now is NOT the time to be putting US service personnel on the ground. We should be selling EVERYONE over in that ****hole the means to kill each other off. Charge ISIL full confiscatory boat for the equipment they buy, and pretend to sell their enemies weapons at full price but cut them fat discounts courtesy of ISIL. If we want people involved over there really badly congress can issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to our PMC's and let them go do business with the Kurds and Iraqi's for a nice fee. Us as a nation stays out of the conflict. Let the Jihadi's have irony of paying for their own destruction.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Captain America said:

Hit them hard, fast and leave no camel un-turned. Let Allah sort them out.

Click to expand...

Top Cat volunteering for 'camel" duty Captain.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Top Cat said:

Yet another poll not working out quite like you planned. Imagine that?

Click to expand...

I am not really surprised. This forum leans decidedly left. I think that is why it is so much fun.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:

What say you?

Click to expand...

Not with the current CnC, he has already purged Generals like Gen. Mattis who knew how to fight and win battles.

Obama would be no different fighting ISIS than he has been with the Taliban in Afghanistan, no desire winning the war.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:

I am not really surprised. This forum leans decidedly left. .

Click to expand...

And you would be wrong yet again. Don't you get tired of it?

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

apdst said:

It was all a part of Chamberlain's master plan? Um...:lamo

Click to expand...

Are you actually disagreeing that Chamberlain ordered a huge military build up after meeting with Hitler?

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

ObamacareFail said:

Actually the Brits and the French had opportunities to stop WW2 before it started. They could have for instance stopped the Germans at the Maginot line. At the time the German Army was not ready or to stand up to the Brit and French military. It would have been the end of Hitler.

Click to expand...

How could they have stopped the Germans at the Maginot line to which the Germans largely avoided? How does a static defense that is avoided by the enemy useful in stopping the enemy other than to force them into another prepared defensive position (which the Allies didn't have.)?

The Brits and French where in no condition for war. Stop lying. Seriously. Do all extreme partisans have a lying quota they have to make daily?

Again, you are making it up as you go along. No partisanship here. I am an a conservative independent who has little use for establishment politicians in either party. And your suggestion that the author of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" was a partisan is utterly hilarious. The author is dead and gone now, however in all probability he was a liberal. He was a journalist. He was in Germany most of the time WW2 was going on and he was a well respected war correspondant and historian. I suggest you read the book and perhaps avoid looking foolish in the future.

Click to expand...

You aren't a partisan? Are you kidding me? Even the right leaning moderators can't agree with that. Anything you say is tainted due to your obscene level of partisan behavior.

That was Chamberlains way of admitting that the UK was caught with it's pants down around it's ankles. There was a reason the UK was not ready for war. When war broke out, they had their military spread out all over the third world taking care of their colonies. That was a price that the UK paid for centuries of imperialism.

Click to expand...

And you think they should have gone to war with that? Please, why?

Yet again, you are making it up as you go along. The US military was very much ready for war. It had the troops as well as the highest technology equipment available in modern times. What the US was not ready for and did not foresee was the level of the insurgency. However that had nothing to do with battle readiness. It was a matter of how long it took to plan and carry out the surge strategy

Click to expand...

Wrong. The US military was geared for conventional warfare. We were not ready at all for COIN operations and it showed. Even Rumsfeld admitted we were not ready with his line "you go to war with the army you have." How can you claim we were ready for war.....yet not ready for the actual combat we saw? That logically does not make sense.

Read Lt. Col Nagal's work. Especially considering he was there in Iraq, he was placed on the COIN think tank and reported directly to the top. No, the US was not ready and you are ignorant for saying so.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:

What planet are you from my left wing friend?

Click to expand...

Being ex navy, probably from the same planet as you. Just different opinions.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:

I am not really surprised. This forum leans decidedly left. I think that is why it is so much fun.

Click to expand...

I think the forum leans right which is why it's so much fun. Right wingers calling obama a liberal or socialist is amusing to me after watching his actions the last five plus years. At least on the economic front I'm talking about.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

obvious Child said:

Are you actually disagreeing that Chamberlain ordered a huge military build up after meeting with Hitler?

Click to expand...

I'm laughing at the laughably rediculus suggestion that The Munich Agreement was part of some master plan to stall Germany and buy time to build up the British Army.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

US Conservative said:

Chamberlains core policy was appeasement, over years with Hitler. Records were found after the war that showed Hitlers military staff had decided just before invading poland that if ANY resistance was met at the border, they would retreat and find and kill Hitler. All it would have taken was a bit of resolve, but Chamberlain hung east europe out to dry.

Hitler owned him and it took war for him to swing around and support war. When he got back and gave his silly liberal "peace for our time" line (sounding like a John Kerry or Obama) he really thought he had achieved that. Churchill knew otherwise.

Click to expand...

Uh, the invasion of Poland came about the same way the Gulf of Tonkin came about: Hitler created phony Polish troops whose mission it was to "shoot at German soldiers from a boarder tower and create teh opportunity for invasion". His troops used priviously gassed Pols to be the German bodies. True story.
Britain did not hang eastern Europe out to dry. They declared war the minute Hitler invaded Poland. Chamberlin did whatever he could do to prevent that from happening: Stalin did very much the same thing. Hitler's actions were no suprise to anyone.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

obvious Child said:

Are you actually disagreeing that Chamberlain ordered a huge military build up after meeting with Hitler?

Click to expand...

Chamberlain like Obama does Islam appeased Hitler.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

fred68 said:

Being ex navy, probably from the same planet as you. Just different opinions.

Click to expand...

You must be awfully lonesome then.......I doubt if many EX Navy guys agree with you my left wing friend.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

obvious Child said:

How could they have stopped the Germans at the Maginot line to which the Germans largely avoided? How does a static defense that is avoided by the enemy useful in stopping the enemy other than to force them into another prepared defensive position (which the Allies didn't have.)?

Click to expand...

I don't have time to teach you. Read the book.

The Brits and French where in no condition for war.

Click to expand...

At that point, the brits and the french combined were a lot more ready then the Germans were. Learn the history or continue looking ignorant.

Stop lying. Seriously. Do all extreme partisans have a lying quota they have to make daily?

Click to expand...

Which part of "I have no use for establishment politicians in either party do you not understand? Or do you not understand what "partisanship is?

You aren't a partisan? Are you kidding me? Even the right leaning moderators can't agree with that. Anything you say is tainted due to your obscene level of partisan behavior.

Click to expand...

You are just lashing out now. Yawn. I will also take it that you do not understand the difference between "partisan and leaning to the left or the right".

And you think they should have gone to war with that? Please, why?

Click to expand...

Again, I don't have time to teach you. I will just point out that I doubt that you understand what was at stake.

Wrong. The US military was geared for conventional warfare. We were not ready at all for COIN operations and it showed. Even Rumsfeld admitted we were not ready with his line "you go to war with the army you have." How can you claim we were ready for war.....yet not ready for the actual combat we saw? That logically does not make sense.

Click to expand...

Obviously you do not understand the context in which Rumsfeld made that statement. It was in regards to a question by a soldier regarding the military having to catch up on armor plating for Humvees and other military vehicles in convoys to protect them from IEDs set up by insurgents. You are attempting to take the readiness aspect to an extreme level. There are always adjustments that end up being made on the battlefield. The kind of readiness you are attempting to portray is simply not possible. Like it or not, the US military was more prepared and ready for war then any military force on the entire planet. That does not mean that enemy tactics will not change and become dangerous.

Read Lt. Col Nagal's work. Especially considering he was there in Iraq, he was placed on the COIN think tank and reported directly to the top. No, the US was not ready and you are ignorant for saying so.

Click to expand...

I find the fact that you are putting up a link to a book and expecting me to read it as quite amusing, considering your response to my suggestion that you read the book: "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. You merely ranted: "Partisan! Partisan!

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

fred68 said:

I think the forum leans right which is why it's so much fun. Right wingers calling obama a liberal or socialist is amusing to me after
watching his actions the last five plus years. At least on the economic front I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

Being a far lefty like you are that does not surprise me

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:

Being a far lefty like you are that does not surprise me

Click to expand...

I judge Obama by his actions, not what the crowd says. Obamacare? A republican plan. He never even considered single payer when he had both houses. Look at who he appoints to cabinet positions. Bankers, wall streeters, and anti labor ceo's. No wild eyed radicals that's for sure. Maybe I'm a lefty but I'm against gun control and mass immigration.
By the way, I was on a carrier in the south china sea, '63 to '66. You?

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Sure, I am quite certain many Iraqi's could use some new boots.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

fred68 said:

I judge Obama by his actions, not what the crowd says. Obamacare? A republican plan. He never even considered single payer when he had both houses. Look at who he appoints to cabinet positions. Bankers, wall streeters, and anti labor ceo's. No wild eyed radicals that's for sure. Maybe I'm a lefty but I'm against gun control and mass immigration.
By the way, I was on a carrier in the south china sea, '63 to '66. You?

Click to expand...

13 months in country in 1968....2 deployments to the South China Seas
ten month deployments to the South China Seas off Nam on dixie and yankee station aboard and AOE.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:

What say you?

Click to expand...

No.


Waste of human resources.


Simply bomb them and give high powered weapons to the Kurds for the next 20 or so years.


That is the best option.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Ryan5 said:

No.


Waste of human resources.


Simply bomb them and give high powered weapons to the Kurds for the next 20 or so years.


That is the best option.

Click to expand...

But for the grace of God you could be one of those unfortunate people getting their heads chopped off. Think about it.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:

But for the grace of God you could be one of those unfortunate people getting their heads chopped off. Think about it.

Click to expand...

Which god are we talking about first off? There's so many I forget which one I need to pretend to care about with who sometimes for social mobility and income maximization.



I have thought about it in your lens with the god aspect applied. My answer now becomes a resounding, even more emphatic no.



The logic of "We should go kill a band of primordial barbarians following Peter Panist Esq ideology because they are wiping out other primordial barbarians that potentially share some strains of our own Peter Panist Esq ideology in a far flung barbarian land full of nothing but death and ruin for us." does not particularly appeal to me in the slightest.



These Iraqi "Christians" are not your flavor of Christian. You have no connection to them. They don't believe what you believe. They aren't ethnically the same as you. They don't share your values.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

apdst said:

I'm laughing at the laughably rediculus suggestion that The Munich Agreement was part of some master plan to stall Germany and buy time to build up the British Army.

Click to expand...

Why can't you answer the question?

Are you actually disagreeing that Chamberlain ordered a huge military build up after meeting with Hitler?

There's something about extreme partisan hacks that makes them unable to answer really basic questions.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

Navy Pride said:

Chamberlain like Obama does Islam appeased Hitler.

Click to expand...

Since when is Islam a monolithic entity? Indonesia is a big ally of the US. And they are the most populated Islamic country in the world.

And are you saying Chamberlain didn't order the biggest military buildup in the UK's history after meeting with Hitler?

Please, after the Iraqi debacle Bush got us into, why do you think it would have been wise for the British to commit to war when they were totally unprepared?

Or you could just run like you always do and not answer anything. Thing is, I throw those in there to shame people into not being cowards and actually standing their ground to defend their claims. But I guess that many of you actually like being cowards.

Re: Do you favor putting boots on the ground in the Midddle East to combat the threa

ObamacareFail said:

I don't have time to teach you. Read the book.

Click to expand...

Meaning you have no answers. Typical.

At that point, the brits and the french combined were a lot more ready then the Germans were. Learn the history or continue looking ignorant.

Click to expand...

Uh Huh. Because they had been preparing for war as the foundation of their economy for the past 4+ years. Oh wait. They weren't.

Which part of "I have no use for establishment politicians in either party do you not understand? Or do you not understand what "partisanship is?[/quote

What part of "your posting history is so wildly partisan that right leaning mods have posted disbelief at your claims you're independent" do you not get?

You are just lashing out now. Yawn. I will also take it that you do not understand the difference between "partisan and leaning to the left or the right".

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I never ever see you criticize a Republican, but look at your own name. You will criticize a democrat for anything and let a Republican get away with anything.

Again, I don't have time to teach you. I will just point out that I doubt that you understand what was at stake.

Click to expand...

Translation: I don't know.

Obviously you do not understand the context in which Rumsfeld made that statement. It was in regards to a question by a soldier regarding the military having to catch up on armor plating for Humvees and other military vehicles in convoys to protect them from IEDs set up by insurgents. You are attempting to take the readiness aspect to an extreme level. There are always adjustments that end up being made on the battlefield. The kind of readiness you are attempting to portray is simply not possible. Like it or not, the US military was more prepared and ready for war then any military force on the entire planet. That does not mean that enemy tactics will not change and become dangerous.

Click to expand...

Actually, I know more about this than you do (well, that's everything really). Rumsfeld at the time was in the process of reorganizing the military to be a much faster, smaller, leaner force. He actually had a framework and vision for what to rebuild the army as to serve our future needs. This was a long term project he had started early on in the Bush Administration. He knew exactly what the military was capable of and doing yet he still supported sending a force he knew was bulky, slow and in need of change to fight a force that was asymmetrical, fluid and not going to stand and fight. The Russians learned the hard way in Chechnya that a conventional forces do not do well against guerrilla forces. Yet it took Lt Col. Nagl who actually understood COIN to change things. Rummy knew our military was not ready for this fight yet he sent them in anyways and it showed. You even admitted we were not ready.

I find the fact that you are putting up a link to a book and expecting me to read it as quite amusing, considering your response to my suggestion that you read the book: "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. You merely ranted: "Partisan! Partisan!

Click to expand...

Lt. Col. Nagl was on the brain trust that turned Iraq around. I trust him more than you who demonstrates nothing but partisan vomit.

Click to expand...